Is there a limit to the number of ancestors we can “follow” please? Or no limit?
I have noticed that on ancestors I have clicked the “follow” button, when I have gone back to revisit the record has been reversed to “unfollow” even though I have definitely not clicked the unfollow button. This has happened quite a few times, which is rather frustrating. I therefore wondered if the was a limit on the numbers we can follow.
I have noticed that on occasions other patrons have made changes which I know are wrong based on my own evidence. I then have to go back and restore the record to correct it, which I find very annoying as sometimes I have spent hours getting things right in the first place. By following a case helps me to keep an eye on it and rectify if necessary.
Here is the article that tells the answer. You can follow up to 4000 people.
You can follow up to 4000 people: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/can-i-follow-an-individual-in-family-tree.
Thank you all for the help received. Very much appreciated.
I am certainly nowhere near the 4000 limit.
I will follow the advice given!
Best wishes to all.
About the profiles mysteriously no longer being followed: Are you using the mobile app? At present it is not synching Follow and Unfollow selections to Family Tree.
The mobile app has never displayed the user's Following list. However, until the latest release (version 4.4.4 released 3 weeks ago) the user could Follow and Unfollow profiles on the mobile app and changes would be reflected on the Following list.
I have not noticed any profiles I follow drop off my Following list but I have missed the mobile feature.
@dereksmith –– Could you say a bit more about what you are seeing?
As a matter of interest, has anyone here ever reached the 4000 limit? I wondered if a flag appears, or clicking on "Follow" just doesn't do anything when you reach that stage.
Actually, from discussions a long time back it appears the 4000 figure is / was a maximum figure, but if you "unfollowed" IDs these would still be counted as part of that 4000. Hence, some users had found the number to be rather less than the maximum allowed - i.e., it was not 4000 at any one time.
I dread to think the work that would be involved (in correcting other users' changes) if I got anywhere near that amount. I just checked and found I have around 1500 IDs I am currently following - and they give me more than enough maintenance work! On the other hand, I also try not to think of all the hard work that has probably been undone on the IDs I choose not to follow.
My Following list hovers around 3500, with high turnover. With turnover I probably have had far over 4000 PIDs on the list. So far, I have not hit any sort of ceiling.
Turnover is high because I only watch heads of tree fragments and profiles I suspect are conflated or have some other problem. Usually I am delighted if anyone edits them, and usually their edits are good. If not good, I usually don't jump in to repair. It will all come out in the wash.
Some profiles I follow are in the LDS membership or their ancestry; others are not. This seems not to make any difference in quality of edits. Beginners are all much the same.
Are you seeing mostly bad edits? I am curious why that is, because that isn't my experience.
Thank you for confirming that. I remember some years ago, certain users would be careful in adding to their (then) "Watch" list, in case they went over the 4000 limit without being aware, so things must have changed.
Regarding the edits, I am so relieved when I see the only changes (to an ID I am following) have been the addition of a couple of sources! Yes, sometimes the edits really do lead to me "having" to carry out a lot of work - up to two days or so, at the worst. The "typical" problem seems to be connected with one of our American cousins believing all "John Smiths" who lived in England during a certain period need to be merged! Well, of course that is a slight exaggeration, but I truly have had a user combining the identities of a number of James Miller individuals, who lived in different parts of England. You would think they would notice - there being, say, multiple census sources attached, all from the same year. A lesser problem is when some users just "hedge their bets" by not necessarily merging two or more individuals, but adding (say) several different 1851 census sources (relating to different parts of the country) to one individual of a certain name - knowing at least one of these is probably the correct one!
When I suggest "having" to carry out corrective work, I suppose I mean I choose to do that - even if the individuals are not known relatives. A bit silly I suppose - I could be prioritising my efforts more "usefully", but just hate to see serious errors left alone!
My follow list is under 2000 and not likely to get much larger. I also have some turnover because I will follow a family group when I'm helping someone with their research. Once I get them settled, I unfollow.
@Paul W –– Those agglomerations of same-name profiles seem to be an especially English phenomenon. So many 2- and 3-trees were made without sources attached, and so many novice English and American genealogists are hunting their ancestors in England. At the first bad hint that any two John Smiths might be duplicates, they start merging (not knowing any better), and merging triggers more hints of the same. Enter the snowball effect.
I guess I don't have that problem much because years ago I did proactive work on all my surnames of interest, systematically cleaning up the English profiles. That has stopped most snowballs from getting started.